Dubai, UAE–The Arab world has come out in support of a vote by the United Nations General Assembly asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
The Arab Parliament ٍpraised the UN General Assembly’s majority vote on Israeli practices that run counter to the rights of Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.
In a statement, the pan-Arab legislature welcomed the support of the Palestinians’ request to resort to the International Court of Justice to issue a legal advisory opinion on the nature of the decades-long occupation of Palestine.
The secretariat general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has also welcomed the resolutions issued by the UN general assembly as regards the Palestinian cause, citing, in particular, the one asking the world court to weigh in on israeli occupation and annexation since 1967, including the city of Al-Quds.
Also read: UN General Assembly refers Israeli occupation to ICJ in Hague
OIC paid tribute to the countries who supported the resolution.
The secretariat general of the Arab League (AL) also welcomed the resolutions issued by the UN General Assembly on the Palestinian cause, citing, in particular, the one asking the International Court to weigh in on Israeli occupation and annexation since 1967, including the city of Jerusalem.
In a statement, Assistant Secretary General for Palestinian and Arab Territories Affairs at the Al Dr. Saeed Abu-Ali said that the UN-sponsored resolution has constituted an important station and platform to confront the Israeli plots, practices and aggression through legal tracks and holding the occupation accountable for its crimes.
The Palestinians on Saturday welcomed the vote too.
Also read: Palestinian President urges Arab support against Israeli ‘crimes’
“The time has come for Israel to be a state subject to law, and to be held accountable for its ongoing crimes against our people,” said Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Senior Palestinian official Hussein Al-Sheikh said on Twitter that Friday’s vote “reflects the victory of Palestinian diplomacy.”
Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem — areas the Palestinians want for a state — in a 1967 war. It withdrew from Gaza in 2005, but, along with neighboring Egypt, controls the enclave’s borders.
The Hague-based ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the top UN court dealing with disputes between states. Its rulings are binding, though the ICJ has no power to enforce them.
The request for a court opinion on Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories was made in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly with 87 votes in favor. Israel, the United States and 24 other members voted against, while 53 abstained.
Palestinian UN envoy Riyad Mansour noted that the vote came one day after the swearing in of a new hard-right Israeli government that promises to expand Jewish settlements and pursue other policies criticized at home and abroad.
“We trust that, regardless of your vote today, if you believe in international law and peace, you will uphold the opinion of the International Court of Justice when delivered and you will stand up to this Israeli government right now,” Mansour told the General Assembly.
The UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation … including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures.”
The UN resolution also asks the ICJ to advise on how those policies and practices “affect the legal status of the occupation” and what legal consequences arise for all countries and the United Nations from this status.
The ICJ last weighed in on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in 2004, when it ruled that an Israeli separation barrier was illegal. Israel rejected that ruling, accusing the court of being politically motivated.